This paper argues that Raz’s ‘normal justification thesis’ fails to explain how the law can meaningfully claim arbitrative authority. Given that the law’s claim to authority is usually understood to amount to (or at least to include) a claim to arbitrative authority, this result suggests that the law’s claim to authority will have to be justified in ways not captured by the normal justification thesis. If one rejects alternative means of justification not captured by the normal justification thesis, on the other hand, one should likewise abandon the thesis that the law necessarily claims practical authority.